SA Footy

Daniel Kerr out for 2 weeks!! Looks bad will not get away with an appeal, silly boy!

Will i get my $50 back i put on him after rd 1?

Im puttin it on Mcleod or Judd.

nah u dont get it back, its a all in market, so no refunds

as sunline has said its an 'all in' market, and therefore you lose your money.

he may get off if members of the tribunal have backed him themselves, similar to mouse in the last game last year against south...............

Why the hell would you back Kerr with his record early in the season?...dumb punting

I was sorta hopin it would work like a horse gettin scratched???? Oh crap. Next year ill do my research. hahaha

Regardless of who the player is if they miss out on the Brownlow medal for an incident like that it is a disgrace. Same scenario as Brett Kirk but he gets away with it because of his previously good record. Kerr gets 3 weeks (reduced to 2 with an early plea) because of a poor record. He is being punished more harshly this season because of what he has done previously. Fair enough maybe but the Brownlow is handed out for on field performance and fairness for just the one season. It does not take into account a previous record yet a previous record can mean that you can't win it. Makes no sense.

Just imagine if Player X tops the Brownlow by 10 votes from Player Y but is ineligible because of an incident that occurred during the season yet Player Y who committed exactly the same infringement gets awarded the medal. Over the course of the 2007 season both players were equally fair but Player X clearly more brilliant yet Player Y wins. Only in the AFL

rod_rooster wrote:Regardless of who the player is if they miss out on the Brownlow medal for an incident like that it is a disgrace. Same scenario as Brett Kirk but he gets away with it because of his previously good record. Kerr gets 3 weeks (reduced to 2 with an early plea) because of a poor record. He is being punished more harshly this season because of what he has done previously. Fair enough maybe but the Brownlow is handed out for on field performance and fairness for just the one season. It does not take into account a previous record yet a previous record can mean that you can't win it. Makes no sense.

Just imagine if Player X tops the Brownlow by 10 votes from Player Y but is ineligible because of an incident that occurred during the season yet Player Y who committed exactly the same infringement gets awarded the medal. Over the course of the 2007 season both players were equally fair but Player X clearly more brilliant yet Player Y wins. Only in the AFL

Theres always too much importance placed on the Brownlow during the season. Anytime a player gets rubbed out, the first thing they mention is the Brownlow. Im sure Kerr's more worried about missing 2 games than he is about not being able to get the Brownlow.

lizbeff eaglez wrote:I was sorta hopin it would work like a horse gettin scratched???? Oh crap. Next year ill do my research. hahaha

well the race has already started so you should have never expected your money back because he had begun the race

heater31 wrote:

lizbeff eaglez wrote:I was sorta hopin it would work like a horse gettin scratched???? Oh crap. Next year ill do my research. hahaha

well the race has already started so you should have never expected your money back because he had begun the race

good point. Doh!!

rod_rooster wrote:Just imagine if Player X tops the Brownlow by 10 votes from Player Y but is ineligible because of an incident that occurred during the season yet Player Y who committed exactly the same infringement gets awarded the medal. Over the course of the 2007 season both players were equally fair but Player X clearly more brilliant yet Player Y wins. Only in the AFL

I hadn't looked at it like that before - you make a good point

The whole "fairest" part of the equation is what brings the uncertaintly into Brownlow predictions. It must be why some of the time an obviously BOG gets ignored for Brownlow votes - bit of lip to the umpire at the wrong time. It's arguable that a suspension in itself should be enough of a penalty because you can't score votes watching from the stands.

Another question is what is the point of a suspended player getting votes in future games after he comes back? He can't win it so why not give the votes to guys who can? I'm not saying they should do that, just raising another anomoly.

The 3-2-1 system is also flawed IMO (is BOG 3 times as good as the 3rd place getter?) but that's a whole other thread topic ....

Are you sure Kirk is still elligible for the Brownlow as he has admitted guilt by taking the reprimand?

hondo71 wrote:...Another question is what is the point of a suspended player getting votes in future games after he comes back? He can't win it so why not give the votes to guys who can? I'm not saying they should do that, just raising another anomoly. ....

It might help his future behaviour to see that he would have won if he had not transgressed! It also makes the point to other players.

The fairest bit is important - it is not for "the best player who got away with it".

Psyber wrote:

hondo71 wrote:...Another question is what is the point of a suspended player getting votes in future games after he comes back? He can't win it so why not give the votes to guys who can? I'm not saying they should do that, just raising another anomoly. ....

It might help his future behaviour to see that he would have won if he had not transgressed! It also makes the point to other players.

The fairest bit is important - it is not for "the best player who got away with it".

The fairest bit is important but it is the fairest over the course of that particular season. Past indiscretions could have one player suspended for the same incident that a player with a better record over previous seasons isn't suspended for. Having one eligible and the other not seems absurd to me.

A long way off yet anyway but does anyone on here think what Kerr did was that bad as to make him ineligible for the Brownlow? Look back at Chris Grant missing out in 1997. That was a disgrace and this would be as well.

rod_rooster wrote:

Psyber wrote:

hondo71 wrote:...Another question is what is the point of a suspended player getting votes in future games after he comes back? He can't win it so why not give the votes to guys who can? I'm not saying they should do that, just raising another anomoly. ....

It might help his future behaviour to see that he would have won if he had not transgressed! It also makes the point to other players.

The fairest bit is important - it is not for "the best player who got away with it".

The fairest bit is important but it is the fairest over the course of that particular season. Past indiscretions could have one player suspended for the same incident that a player with a better record over previous seasons isn't suspended for. Having one eligible and the other not seems absurd to me.

Agreed - I'd suspend every player for every incident - the only variant would be for how long!
Then Mums wouldn't make the kids play Soccer instead!

rod_rooster wrote:A long way off yet anyway but does anyone on here think what Kerr did was that bad as to make him ineligible for the Brownlow? Look back at Chris Grant missing out in 1997. That was a disgrace and this would be as well.

Chris Grant whollped Nick Holland when beaten to a marking contest .Not sure I understand the tragedy there.

redden whites wrote:

rod_rooster wrote:A long way off yet anyway but does anyone on here think what Kerr did was that bad as to make him ineligible for the Brownlow? Look back at Chris Grant missing out in 1997. That was a disgrace and this would be as well.

Chris Grant whollped Nick Holland when beaten to a marking contest .Not sure I understand the tragedy there.

Interesting definition of "whalloped"

Fist to the side of the head will do me.

Is Brent Harvey still eligible for the Brownlow? I heard hes got done for something
Im nervous ...

Stumps wrote:Is Brent Harvey still eligible for the Brownlow? I heard hes got done for something
Im nervous ...

dunno what your talking about Stump